The terrorist act in the theater center demonstrated that there are major elite forces in Russia that are ready to allow the country to disintegrate by playing «Chechen card» and with the aim to change the power. Allegations that the bourgeois revolution has occurred in Russia are absolutely unsubstantiated. In fact, in result of «privatization of the basis by way of sawing the superstructure up to pieces» the Russian elite has launched processes of political and economic feudalization and social archaization of the country. The secondary feudalism does need a strong state center. Feudalism requires gradual imposition of confederation arrangement of the state. The real resource is in hands of quasi-dominant parasite class. This class exhausts the country and does not create stable productive systems. Under such circumstances a person who is willing to get something different has to solve the problem of resources (including pecuniary resource) required for a struggle for his/her alternative project. Money may appear around some project synthesis or a tactical coincidence of interests on the basis of realization of one’s own project (if so, we may call such person an independent agent and speak of politics). However the resources may arise on the basis of integration into an alien project (if it is the case we can speak of a footman and betrayal). Berezovski has a project, this is why he is an independent agent. Prokhanov takes money from Berezovski for realization of Berezovski’s confederation project. The integrity of Russia is suspended on very thin threads. The main miracle is the steady resistance of the peoples of Northern Caucasus who do not yield to provocation of Chechens. It is very easy to blast the situation by connecting quasi-liberal and quasi-patriotic provocative deeds with errors of the power.

The article deals with the formation of Russia as the political and ethnic national power through its territorial expansion to Northern Caucasus. The author emphasizes that, unlike other empires (for example, Great Britain), Russia’s principal aim was not to obtain material and political advantages but to familiarize indigenous peoples with and absorb them into the civil co-existence with other subjects. At the same time the author notes that the very process of establishment Russia-Caucasus unity generated contradictory tendencies. On one hand, one should not forget about existence of intra-regional contradictions among highlanders. These contradictions made a considerable part of the local population to seek solidarity with Russia. On the other hand, peculiarities of psychological profile of highland peoples are such that they do not accept the state violence and enforcement. Thus, Russia succeeded to win not so much due to its military superiority but due to its spiritual, moral authority. Joining the empire was not connected with suppression. On the contrary, indigenous peoples retained their customs and a chance of free development. Moreover, these benefits sometimes brought economic advantages in comparison to the conditions of the Russians who formed the majority of the empire’s population. The author emphasizes that Russia has always been and remains to be not just political ethnic national state. Russia possesses the spiritual and moral potential due to which it saved small peoples from the threat of complete extermination.

This paper presents a concise retrospective analysis of the basic aspects of the Greek-Turkish relations in Cyprus in their evolution, since 1571 (advent and establishment of the Turks in Cyprus) until nowadays, and tries to explore the roots and reasons of the Cyprus problem, as well as possible solutions to it. The article mainly examines the inter-communal level of the Cyprus issue, limiting itself, where necessary, to short remarks on the outside actors' involvement into the situation in Cyprus — that of Greece, Turkey, Great Britain, European Union, United Nations etc. Key-points of intra-Cyprus relations singled out, the author concludes that the inter-communal interaction was harmonious till the very second quarter of the XX century, and the clash was neither inevitable nor predestined. The unbridled development and maturing of national self-consciousness resulted in sliding down into the conflict, thus preventing the formation of a Cypriot — single and common, «supra-communal» — identity. The British system of administration (1878−1960) stimulated and accelerated this process but was not its origin. The armed inter-communal clash could have been avoided and was triggered by egoistical policies of the two communities, as well as by strategies of the outside powers — Great Britain, Greece, Turkey and the USA. Taking into consideration the fact that the Cyprus conflict is relatively «young» and emotionally sharp, the author lays out the principal points of the plan submitted by the UN Secretary-General K. Annan on the 11th of November, 2002, and reflects upon its prospects as well as on general strategies to follow in order to find a solution to the Cyprus problem.

An inquiry deals with definitions of historical work in the Russian history-writing of the XVI century. Basing upon such examples as annals, ABC-books and works of Prince Andrey Kurbsky, the author shows that at that time «history» implied the specific type of narration distinct from other historic genres and akin to such fictional genre short story. Especially important influence on incipience of history-writing in Russia brought to bear eschatological anticipations and wide-spread practice of reading of portents. These two facts predetermined sophistication of the prescriptions on interpretation of events and composition of historical texts.

In works of Russian writers of the 19th century the governor was the most typical representative of the top Russian bureaucracy world. Literary sources reflected differences in various estates and social groups' attitudes to the governor and the exaggerated hopes that the public opinion too often conferred upon the chief of gubernia. At the same time, as one may see in literary works the governor’s own broad notions of his mission were combined with the aspiration to be not so much the «master» and the chief of gubernia but rather the intermediary and arbitrator as well as the center of the local good society.

Overcoming of established stereotypes and notions related to evaluation of the past events is a very complicated undertaking. It requires the same sensitivity and creative effort as the work of restoration master. Only by removing all attempts to the past smooth and depositions in characterization of actual and chronological sequence of events and their actors one may escape that impersonal «resultant» against which Boris Nikolaevski, one of the leading investigators of the Russian political history, protested so vigorously.

It is the publication of the letter on establishment of Radischev fine arts museum in Saratov and its founder, the professor of painting and a grandson to Radischev A.P.Bogolyubov whose energy, initiative and funds were the actual foundation of this artistic institution which turned out to be the first free access provincial museum and the school of drawing.